The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The Defendant, on the other hand, discovered the victim’s bicycle, and she saw the victim’s bicycle, followed the Defendant.

Therefore, the victim's own direction is the wind that the defendant has shocked the victim's rear wheels with his own bicycle front wheels, and there is no negligence in relation to the bicycle collision accident of this case.

(2) The instant bicycle collision accident is very minor and thus it is difficult for the victim to suffer injury of cerebrovascular, and the defendant could not have predicted that the victim would suffer injury of cerebrovascular due to the instant bicycle collision accident. Therefore, the defendant cannot be held responsible for the injury of cerebrscular.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant alleged that the judgment of the court below is identical to the above assertion of mistake of fact, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail by presenting the judgment on the "decision on the point of dispute" in the "decision on the point of dispute". Even if the court below duly adopted and examined the evidence, the judgment of the court below is justified, and the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts, and the above argument by the defendant

B. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness on the assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be considered newly in sentencing in the trial.